Skip to main content

About your Search

20130302
20130310
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14
, to require those that traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms, and we'll give law enforcement more effective tools. the substitute also incorporates a number of changes, the result of suggestions from senator grassley and his staff. we have been working on this since january. tried to be responsive to the ranking member's concerns and suggestions, and have reached across the aisle to other senators. as a a.t.f. whistleblower, senator grassley has been the lead senator in whistleblower legislation, was a a.t.f. whistleblower, who testified last congress that the existing laws are toothless and they can help law enforcement -- can't help law enforcement, and that's why law enforcement consistently has called for firearms trafficking statute that can be effective and go after straw purchasers. we need now is to create better law enforcement tools. and i think this will -- the senators can join together on this will close a very dangerous loophole in the law that mexican drug cartels and gangs and other criminals have exploited for too long. stop illegal trafficking th
at the end of the last congress. how to make a law. just read the look. and i recognize that you would hardly recognize that civics lesson if you see what's happening on the floor here today and over the last period of time. but i have enormous, enormous respect for the chairman of the appropriations committee. we sat on that committee together for a number of years. i appreciate that he wanted to bring a bill to the floor that honors the budget control act. i disagree with the tactic of putting a reinforcement of the sequester into the law. it exists. we have to do the sequester unless we can head it off. unless the safety of our troops and their training, our national security, the education of our children, the safety of our neighbors, unless that takes precedence over protecting tax breaks for corporate jets, businesses that send jobs overseas, the list goes on and i mentioned it now more than one time. so i urge my colleagues to think carefully about this vote. this isn't a vote to shut down government or not. that vote will come another time. the senate isn't going to accept this bill.
's a comment on twitter. when boeing and others by law tried to notify employees of potential layoffs size year, obama astin not to do it. -- obama asked them not to do it. this notion of the warren act, can you talk about that? guest: the furloughs and that the federal government will not begin until the end of this month. you have to send a letter and the president signs it -- signed it last week saying that furloughs are coming. you've got to give advance notice. and in terms of contractors, you got to give advance notice as well, at least as i am under cla. the speaker pro tempore: of rule 0. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to the bill, h.r. 307. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 307. an act to re-authorize certain programs under the public health service act and the federal food, drug and cosmetic act with respect to public health security and all has -- all-h
of the children and education. we've made sure that our law enforcement is taken care of, but we've also made those difficult choices early on that washington could really learn from in budgeting. i congratulate congressman messer for bringing this particular bill. it's a good government bill. i know the other side of the aisle is talking about the sequester, and i find it ironic that "the washington times" today has a headline that says, 400 more jobs were created in spite of the sequester. so i don't believe that the sky is falling here. this legislation requires the president to do some simple math and include with his budget, should he choose to submit one, an estimate of the cost of the deficit per taxpayer. taxpayers just simply deserve to know how much they owe for washington's out-of-control spending. after all, every dime that the federal government borrows is saddled on this generation and the next generation and generations to follow. right now the cost of washington's $16 trillion of national debt totals more than $147,000 per taxpayer. in fact, approximately every minute, mr. spe
of the senate law enforcement caucus today to hear testimony from kentucky and delaware about the justice reinvestment initiative. we flew some people in. unfortunately the inclim ate weather canceled it. it's a place where bipartisan bills at the state level have led with federal partnership to the critical catalytic investments in improving criminal justice systems. the bulletproof partnership is something -- i had a police officer from dover, delaware, a couple months ago, was shot twice close range in the chest and survived. the county where i used to serve, their lives were saved. we should be re-authorizing this program. i look forward working with you on that. last question if i could, in the same vein. the victims of child abuse act and the child advocacy centers that it funds, i think are an enormous resource for law enforcement and prevent the revictimization by children who were traumatized to be interviewed once. it has all the relevant folks there and present. the one i visited, a children's hospital in new cassel county, the resource for our community and our law enforcement
, the position the states are in as a result of the law being passed eric -- past. having said that, i think there is a lot that people miss with respect to the drivers of healthcare cost. i think part of this reflects the fact that our body politic is reluctant to accept certain realities of the academic literature. finkelstein's research demonstrated that one of the big drivers of healthcare cost inflation was the rapid expansion of federally subsidized insurance in the 1960's to medicare and medicaid. the provision of federally subsidized insurance is a big driver of health service consumption and puts a lot of upward pressure on costs. there of another academic studies. one basically look at the factors throughout countries that drive health inflation. one of the big factors is the rate of growth of government provided health care services. if we are with ourselves, we have to recognize that one of the big drivers of healthcare cost inflation is the extent to which the federal government is subsidizing healthcare through various means. it will be difficult for us to get that under contro
people get an education that protect our communities, our law enforcement officials, environmental protection, we're cutting all those things mindlessly in order to protect these corporate tax loopholes. this is crazy. i really believe that outside of this little bubble here in washington there is a bipartisan consensus that what we're doing here is crazy. this doesn't make any sense. this does not make any sense. mindless, senseless, across-the-board cuts. no urgency. we are going to go home today. there's a little snow on the ground. we can't really go anywhere until it reopens. we ought to stay here and find out an alternative sequestration. mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, this is not a perfect bill. this is a disgraceful bill. and this process is not on the level. . yesterday wall street celebrated its highest close in history. today it's going higher. and you know what a few years ago they came h
starts january. but there are look-back procedures in the law that are affecting the way the employers hire their staff today. there are a lot of effects of obamacare that we are starting to see and the house, i expect, will have extensive oversight hearings on the devastating impact of this law and the american people. >> [inaudible] >> we'll look at them when we get there. >> will that go into the budget? >> i don't know that. last one. >> have you worked out a schedule when it comes to conference? >> i'm not -- the president talked about coming up and having a conversation with our members. i'm not sure when that conversation will be. as you know, he is getting ready to empark on a trip to the middle east and that's one of the issues he'll want to cover. but i'm sure the issue of sequestration will come up as well. we are going to welcome the president to come up and talk to our members and i'm looking forward to it. >> wednesday morning? >> when we are ready to announce it, you'll know. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national capti
. >> to make it to responses, justice breyer. the first one focuses on the operation of the law and the consequences that flow from it. i do not think shelby county or alabama got to bring a successful challenge on the basis that it ought not to have covered arizona or alaska. the statute has been a mechanism. those jurisdictions can build themselves out of it and if they do and it doesn't work, they may very well have a challenge they can bring to the law. that doesn't justify given the structure of the law that there's a tailored mechanism. >> i don't understand the distinction between facial and a supplied and they talk about formula. as applied to shelby county are covered because of the formula, so they challenge as applied to them. i'm not even sure what your position is on the formula. if the formula congruent and proportional today? review had this reverse engineering argument? >> congress' decision to reenact it was congruent and proportional. >> to the problem was the formula congruent and proportionate? >> the court has found four different times at the formula in the
changes in market places, these were provisions set up in the law for states to step in and establish what is called these exchanges and the place where individuals can go and purchase coverage. for lower income individuals, you have heard like subsidies and credits are important. through these individual exchanges from the federal government will do tax credits and subsidies. primarily for lower income americans for coverage all of this is linked together. you may be able to go to exchanges and get credit for subsidies to do this. all of these provisions are linked together. to be candid, this is not so great. employers have always offered this in a voluntary manner the law has requirements on how this is offered. under the definition, it says that every large employer must offer coverage. the definition is if you have more than 50 employees, you have to offer coverage. you have to do a calculation. you can have as few as 20 or 25 employees, but you have to have this in a careful way. if you have 50 employers, you have to have coverage. a lot of mom-and-pop shops in donut shops and hambur
. the only ones that would have guns would be the government and of course criminals who ignore gun laws. i call it the mexico model. guns are outlawed in mexico. the citizens cannot possess guns. there is no second amendment. so the government has guns and criminals have guns. some of those criminals have guns thanks in part to the united states government sending 2,000 assault weapons to them in fast and furious. but that's another story. u.s. cities are moving toward the mexico model. chicago and washington, d.c., have laws that make it very difficult for a citizen to exercise the second amendment. these cities make it difficult to even own a firearm, but all three places -- mexico, chicago, washington, d.c. -- all have a reputation of violent, unsafe places. why? because they are. in d.c., if d.c. was so safe, why are government guards everywhere in the city? even here in this capitol building there are armed guards on the roof, at the doors, at the back doors, at the doors over to the east and to the west. it's hypocritical of the gun control crowd in this chamber to say more guns for
, but we now recognize the shortfalls. one primary concern is how the law defines "good teachers it peaked and no child of behind's rigorous -- good teachers." nclb changed the rigorous standards. it sounds great in theory, but it meant schools were forced to value and educators credentials over their ability to effectively and successfully teach children. we all want qualified teachers in the classroom, but we must recognize that it cannot recognize simply by degrees and diplomas alone. recognizing antiquated teaching requirements alone are not helping them on this track in bringing promising teachers to the classroom. some have been working on better alternatives. a growing number of states and school districts have started developing new teacher evaluation systems to incorporate student performance data. not only does this data help measure but a teacher success, and also provides educators with the buyout -- the back to analyze and revised methods. i am pleased to welcome one of my fellow hoosier educators and talk about the importance of teacher valuation at the local level. tennessee
in the long run it's the rule of law and the political resolution of challenges that provide for all minorities in iraq the best opportunity, the military itself, when i see them in action, trying to work it out with the kurdish situation to the north, appear to be willing to negotiate, to talk, not to go to arms, i see them doing the same thing with the sunni troubles out west, that's the role of the military to but tres law and the rule of law, not to try to provide security as the sole solution to that problem. >> i do hope that you and your successor will look for ways that we can press the iraqis to do what they committed to do, which is protect minorities inside of iraq. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my opening statement i talked about what we did, senator too mi and i headed -- toomey and i headed up the effort to allow more flexibility with the chiefs, and i talked to the chiefs about this and they responded strongly that yes in the same top line operating for the same amount of money would we be able to get, to reduce the devastati
, interdiction, law enforcement, and diplomacy and we talked about the mall this morning, must be brought together to bring sustained pressure on the regime. pyongyang must be faced with a choice. it can retain its nuclear and missile programs or pays a high price. it must no longer be allowed to use these programs as a means to extract concessions that only serve to strengthen the regime and perpetuate the missile and nuclear threat. as for diplomacy, our main focus should be on china. the principal obstacle to bring effective pressure on north korea. four, the promotion of human rights. while part of u.s. official talking points for years has not been a significant element of u.s. strategy. it should be as it was in the reagan administration and its dealings with the soviet union. exposing the domestic brutality of the regime is the moral course and potentially an effective means to influence dprk leaders. because north korea is likely to retain its as -- nuclear and missile capabilities the u.s. must insure that it can defend against the threat. this requires missile defenses that prot
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14